Whereby local control?

Monday

Feb 18, 2013 at 3:15 AM

What does “local control” mean in New Hampshire? Before becoming a member of the Municipal & County Government Committee of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, I had not given this question much thought. After all, “Live Free or Die” is our motto; we pride ourselves on self-reliance and personal responsibility. I, at least, had always thought that this general approach would apply to our towns and cities as well.

Turns out it doesn’t. In New Hampshire, our municipalities must be enabled by the state legislature, whether by the granting of a charter or the establishment of governing forms permitted by the State.

This results in a lot of work for my committee. When citizens see a need for a change in how their town functions, they ask their legislators to come to our committee to propose those changes. Already this session we have been asked to change the system for dog licensing, change the penalty for violating local vendor laws, and permit towns to have a contingency line in their budgets. Already we have held public hearings on more than 45 bills and voted a recommendation to the full House on 23 of them.

While many are non-controversial, almost all raise what I have come to see as a fundamental question, a conundrum to be appreciated. Despite how we are organized as a state, we are a citizenry very much invested in the notion of local control. And so I ask myself: does the proposed bill support local control? If not, and there is no compelling need of the state to further limit local control, I vote to kill it (Inexpedient to Legislate-ITL). If the bill maintains or enhances local control, and there is no reason to believe the bill would negatively impact citizens of the State at large, then I vote to recommend it to the full House (Ought to Pass-OTP).

One thing to keep in mind. Every bill that any citizen convinces a legislator to introduce gets a full public hearing before a committee. Every bill, regardless of its merit, potential good or potential harm. There is no prescreening process. The committee then makes a recommendation to the full House and the full House must vote on the bill. As one might guess, this means that some very improbable bills get submitted and heard. I have found that using local control as a foundation principle works well for me.

Here are three examples:

A bill was submitted to give towns the authority to change the governance of libraries from a board of trustees to the selectmen. The rationale was that selectmen are much more attentive to the bottom line of the town budget and would therefore be more frugal. At first blush, the principle of local control might favor the bill — let each town choose. What I learned from testimony is that the state established libraries as separate governmental units long ago. Elected trustees are responsible for everything except the line item of funding the selectmen provide in the town budget. In fact, state law requires each town to fund a library to an adequate degree. Thus there is strong, balanced local control under the current system. Libraries are independent educational organizations essential to an informed citizenry, governed by a local elected body. When the committee votes on this bill to overturn that independence, I will vote ITL. I believe the bill would reduce local control and has the potential for clear harm on a statewide basis.

Another bill was submitted to prohibit the state, counties, and municipalities from joining the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). ICLEI is a non-governmental, membership organization dedicated to sustainable development. Four cities in New Hampshire (Nashua, Portsmouth, Wolfeboro, Keene) pay dues to ICLEI and use its services to aide their own sustainability efforts. Supporters of the billed contended, among other things, that ICLEI is a subterfuge, an arm of the United Nations Agenda 21, whereby the rights of New Hampshire citizens will be taken away. Based largely on the principle of local control, the committee voted ITL by a margin of 14-3. The House in full session, after hearing supporters’ arguments, subsequently agreed and voted down the bill.

The last example involves a bill to allow counties to pay members of the county delegation (all of us in the House) up to $50 each time we attend a meeting on county business. Current law requires counties to pay something and limits the amount to $25. Supporters of the bill were from the geographically larger, more sparsely populated counties where there has been difficulty getting a quorum to conduct county business that requires action by the county delegation. I initially assumed that I and the committee would vote against (ITL) this bill. How could we vote to give ourselves a potential pay raise in these tough economic times? After hearing testimony, I and the committee voted OTP unanimously (16-0). We did this on the principle of local control. No county was obligated in any way to raise its payment. Currently some pay $15, some $20, and we in Strafford County receive the full $25. The bill enabled counties who felt the need in order to function better to raise the payment. When the bill got to the full House, however, the vote went the other way. House members argued that even the perception that we might be raising our compensation in the current economic climate was the wrong thing to do.

And so this new legislator is learning how our state operates. I find it a great privilege to be among those 400 good souls who, each by his or her own lights, are working to do the best we can on “the people’s business.” Special thanks to the voters of Ward 1 for giving me this opportunity to learn, grow and serve.

State Rep. Jim Verschueren

District 13, Ward 1, Dover

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.